Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 October

:{{move review links|Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi}}|rm_section=Requested move 8 October 2016}}

This article was moved without sufficient consensus. It lasted a little over six days, and {{diff|Talk:Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi|next|744355350|was closed}} by {{u|Pannam2014|the nominator himself}}. {{diff|Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi|747082477|745505121|I reverted the move on these grounds}}, but the user that moved the page in the first place {{diff|Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi|next|747082477|eventually reverted me}}. I would also note that no other Wikipedia user had supported the move, {{diff|Talk:Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi|743203113|743180451|only an IP}}, {{IP|64.105.98.115}}. Move requests are usually closed by a non-involved party, and as such I believe that the move request was finalised improperly and should be thusly reviewed. --Nevé–selbert 20:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

:strongly oppose False. It is false. In the WP rule, any rule prohibits the nominator to rename a page after a consensus. A week has passed and nobody was against. It's up to you to a have a new request. There are consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious overturn. Per WP:RMCI, no involved editor should be closing a move discussion. Just let a neutral party close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn (reopen). Close did not follow RMCI. Editors should avoid closing discussions that they have been involved in. Beyond that non-admin closures should not be made before seven days have fully passed. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply to|PaleAqua|Cuchullain}} However, the rules are clear. No rule prohibits the creator of the request to close itself, and if you want it to happen like this, you change the rules. But in this case, there is no retroactivity and this rule should cover future claims. The rest of the seven days counting the day of the opening has been respected. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|New York|rm_page=Talk:New York/July 2016 move request|rm_section=}}

The most recent close did not follow the spirit and intent of the agreement made by participants as to how this request should be closed and who should close it. Due to the past history and the impact of the article, an agreement was made in this discussion to have a three-member panel of trusted editors close the request. Preliminary statements by closers were given here. The three closers disappeared for a time and were thought to be in deliberation. Attempts were made to contact them, and one of the members reappeared, later to close the request without input from the other two panel members. A final attempt was made in this discussion to resolve this; however, the close of the single panel member remains in place in opposition to the original intent of participants as shown above. The closing decision of the single panel member of "no consensus to move or not to move" should therefore be overturned, and the decision of the previous move request, which was overturned and relisted at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June – New York (state), as well as the consensus garnered in the most recent discussion, should be upheld and the page title "New York (state)" should be returned to the article about the state of New York.  Paine  ^u/c 02:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Uphold close. While I do think this is ultimately the best course of action, this review is simply put the latest attempt to force a move without consensus by someone who has outright stated they will continue to badger the discussion until they get their way. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• For the record I never stated that, outright nor otherwise.  Paine  ^u/c 03:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• With all due respect, I have a hard time parsing {{tq|I intend to keep discussing it until you and others see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York!}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=746049237&oldid=746044109 diff]), any other way. This was in response to a rather bland request to pause discussion until March. It doesn't get any better in context, but the full discussion is available for all to review if they wish. To be fair, it was subsequently walked back a bit with {{tq|So what I should have said is that I will continue to keep discussing it until move opposers either see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York {{big|or}} I am made to understand the guidelineless, policyless and logicless rationales of the page move opposers!}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=746104018&oldid=746080195 diff]); make of that what you will. Antepenultimate (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for your fair assessment, Antepenultimate, and as you note, I did recognize that my initial statement might be misconstrued, which is why I modified it as you also most kindly noted above. I consider this requested move to have been improperly closed, and therefore still "open", and I honestly see no harm in continuing to discuss an open proposal. And that was what happened. I was not the only one who continued to discuss it as you may well know. So here we are at Move review, continuing to discuss things that do not pertain to the actual close, or non-close as the case is believed to be. Endorsers and potential endorsers should take into account that this request was improperly closed in a manner that was not agreed to by any of the participants. That and only that is pertinent here.  Paine  ^u/c 05:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Also noted is the August RfC in which a consensus was garnered against the article about the state of New York being the primary topic for the title "New York".  Paine  ^u/c 03:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Although the structure was a bit messy and the close documentation lacking in formailities the discussion was very well participated and all involved participants appeared unconfused regarding the discussion and close. Post RM discussions are bordering disruptive, recommend a two year moratorium (nothing is going to change). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close and suggest moratorium. ( Note while I did not take part in the move !vote, I did comment in some of the related discussions including the previous move review. ). The !vote was clearly no consensus ( strong arguments on both side though not directly countering each other ), and while it would have been best had the closers come together for a single statement it is clear that the net result was no consensus. The additional discussions since the close have more of a focus on strong pushing one side vs working towards a consensus and the size of the conversation as well as the over heatedness of the continuing debate since seems likely to discourage new input. Given that I strongly suggest a moratorium on move discussions and with a longer drafting period for the next time this comes up to a requested move proceeding the next !vote. PaleAqua (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• A longer time drafting the format, yes. No criticism of the drafters last time, but next time (which is to be anticipated as at the end of the moratorium) we can benefit from knowing which were the important questions last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close and suggest moratorium. The move request was unbelievably thorough, so much that recent further debates and the primary topic RfC were seen as excessive and inappropriate. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close, {{u|Newyorkbrad}} has unambiguously affirmed the closure several times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=746502365&oldid=746443973 a recent example]) and the other closers have been pinged repeatedly, yet remain silent. (Even so, pings to this new venue seem appropriate, with apologies: {{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}, {{u|Niceguyedc}}.) If they have a problem with Newyorkbrad's handling of this, they've been oddly reluctant to say anything to that effect. For that reason, I see little reason to overturn the close, even if it could have been clearer initially. I'm a dirty rotten move opposer, though my position has evolved such that I now I think a move could be beneficial; with that in mind, I see little way forward to such an outcome without some sort of freakin' break from this trainwreck of a never-ending conversation. Let's revisit this in the future; I have little doubt that we will. Antepenultimate (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (Disclosure: I am very much in favour of a move of the New York State article away from the base name New York, but that of course is not the issue here.)

: I am very much of two minds. I very much wish this MR had not been raised, but it was the right of any editor to raise it.

: On the one hand, I don't see how overturning this close will get us any closer to a good outcome, any more than overturning the close of the earlier RM by relisting did (this RM was that relisting, as I understand it). What is needed is a totally new RM, proposing that New York become a primary redirect to New York City. Agree that this RM should not happen immediately. We are making progress towards it. The RfC on primary topic of New York, and the new proposal regarding a primary redirect, are both progress.

: On the other hand, the close was very puzzling. All three of the panel found the move case stronger than the oppose case, one even found consensus to move, but the other two found the move arguments not strong enough. Two of the panel found that the current situation is damaging, but the third did not even comment on that issue. There was no comment on the key argument that New York City was not the primary topic. Which arguments, if any, were discounted as illogical or plainly contrary to policy? Did the majority accept the argument that New York State is the primary topic of New York? In determining whether or not there was consensus, did they accept the circular argument that assumed there was no consensus?

: Agree that the close was an enormous ask, I do not envy the panel, nor wish to criticise. I have thanked them and do so again. But there are so many questions left hanging that I must also say that the close is so puzzling as to bring the whole idea of a closing panel into question.

: Can we really endorse such a close? Is there some other option? Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• There was no close so nothing to endorse or overturn here. I was a supporter of the move, but I would have been perfectly happy to see a close of no consensus, if the panel agreed to it. But that didn't happen. Two thirds of the panel left the building before the matter was closed, and have consistently refused to comment despite promising to do so in their "initial findings". The only panelist left standing was the one who was most against the move of the three panelists. Panel closures can and do work well, as we saw at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, but that hasn't been the case here. At this point I suggest we declare a mistrial and move on to a new move request with a new panel whenever we can.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• There can be no contesting the facts as you have presented them, Amakuru. Technically, there was no close in the manner that we all initially agreed. Of course the move opposers and some supporters see it very differently as shown above. The opposers welcomed NYBrad's close, and there is great respect in both camps for NYBrad's attempt to bring the matter to an end. This MRV is not about NYBrad, who is indeed a trusted member of the closing panel. This MRV is only about the close of the request that was made by NYBrad. And that close is what needs to be overturned or endorsed. If endorsed, then the "no consensus" close is upheld and, by nature of that type of closure, we can all come back in six months with the new info we gather and request the page move again. If overturned, then since the June close was overturned here at Move review, that should effectively overturn that previous ruling and the state page should be re-renamed to "New York (state)", where it was moved in June.  Paine  ^u/c 15:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the main points of this, User:Amakuru. But I don't see any practical difference between what you propose and endorsing the close. That's except for the assumption that we would have a panel next time. Is there any reason to think that a new panel will work any better then the tried and tested procedure at WP:RM? Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• :{{ec}} {{ping|Andrewa}} you're right. Essentially I am upholding the "close" that {{u|Newyorkbrad}} and {{u|Bd2412}} have declared on this, (and kudos to those two for sticking with this process), in saying that there is nothing we can do on this almost six month old RM, and it is basically finished, done with, no consensus. The only reason I hesitate to just write "Endorse Close" is that I want to ensure we don't have a repeat of this situation. I don't think wha thappened is acceptable, and I think that if we attempt a panel close again (which we almost certainly have to for a long standing contentious request of this nature), then we should establish the ground rules up front and ensure that the panelists see their job through to its conclusion. If I find the time I might actually try to write down some thoughts on panel closures in essay or other format, and then see if we can agree sometihng through an RfC. In short then, I endorse the fact that this is closed, but I do not endorse the way it happened. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• ::My thoughts exactly, except I can't see any reason that the next RM should have a closing panel, and several reasons it should not. But if we are to have another panel, we have learned there are some things to avoid I think. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• :::Well, if we're not to have a panel, then what should we have? This RM was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=725833539&oldid=725726846 already closed once], a very long time ago, by a lone non-admin, in what I thought was a judicoius and well reasoned close. But that was shot out of the water in the previous move review. Would a close by an admin have been better? I think the problem here was not the panel per se, but the fact that (a) the panel's duties were not agreed up front, including how they would reach a binding decision, and (b) the fact that two panelists essentially disappeared before the RM was properly closed. I think we could actually formalise a process for this, and (as I think I've mentioned several million times), the Hillary Clinton closure seems a good model to follow; the panelists agree to communicate off-wiki until they deliver a single unified panel decision. If I get some spare time in the next month or two I might draft an essay along these lines and see if we can get it accepted.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• ::::By all means work on that, and I will contribute my thoughts in the appropriate place. But this was, as you say, a panel discussion because the normal RM process seemed to have failed. It was a relisting of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=prev&oldid=724511766 Requested move 9 June 2016] which had otherwise ended inconclusively. Didn't work.
• ::::The goal is to build consensus. I think the best chance of this is a fresh and significantly different RM, following the established procedures, and following them a bit better. But not immediately. Give us all some time to reflect on the (non-)result of this one first. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, per {{u|Amakuru}} and per Wikipedia process, if a three-editor panel was asked to decide this then they should have all either decided it in totality and agreement or asked to be excused and replaced on the panel. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but I have seen some, in my opinion, incorrect and quick close decisions (closing in one or two minutes, the time it apparently took the closer to read a long and thought-out discussion , to wrap their head around the viewpoints, study the questions raised, and look at links and sources mentioned in the close, is not uncommon), and it's that quickness which would be at least check-and-balanced with three-member panels. Randy Kryn 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse non-close – We should accept that the outcome of this discussion will remain forever ambiguous. I readily admit that move advocates were not able to obtain a broad community consensus despite orderly presenting strong and numerous arguments backed by policy. However the closure or lack thereof (depending on your POV) was absolutely out of process and sets a puzzling precedent for Wikipedia. It leaves participants in a position to disagree whether there is consensus as to not having reached consensus. {{small|(Take a deep breath and read it again: it's true.)}} I agree with other editors that the two panelists who stopped discussing should have recused themselves and make way for two other volunteers (we had plenty). In hindsight, {{u|jc37}}'s words of warning were prescient (emphasis mine):

::{{talkquote|This isn't because I wasn't in the selected "list" (because all you're doing is saving me from doing work : ) - But I've never heard of a discussion where they could cherry-pick their closers. Consensus, that is not.
To clarify: I've been a closer on multiple closer discussions before. Requesting more than one closer from the outset is fine. Specifying types of closers, is not. And asking for 3 and getting 5 means you let the closers decide whether they are going to recuse, or whether just to have 5 closers. You don't decide for them. I've never seen a situation where cherry-picking closers is seen as appropriate. Not ever. I understand that you see this as important and potentially divisive, but this is no less true than other such discussions, like RFCs on WP:V, or on "the troubles", or any number of other contentious discussions. Cherry-picking is contrary to policy, that's a fact, not an interpretation. One that shouldn't require me to remind you all, as I think you all know better than to do this.
And for the record, my intent was to do what I've done in the past: Since there were more than 3 volunteers, once more than 3 were confirmed to be active (not just agreeing to close, but actually participating - in case the number fell to less-than-3, which has also happened in the past), I was going to bow out and let them have the fun of closing. I mention this, because this isn't a debate, and this is merely a clarification. Anyway, as I said, I leave you all to it. |by=jc37 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

}}

:I will not delve into the merits of the move case, but the passionate megabytes-long debate that ensued over 3 months after this inconclusive non-closure guarantees that the question will re-emerge soon. I therefore oppose any moratorium. My hope is that the clarity achieved on the primary topic question and the herculean work to fix 75'000 incoming ambiguous links will help guide a new move debate that would bring effective closure one way or the other. — JFG ^talk 15:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

::I think that the continuos discussion after the break is exactly why a moratorium is needed. Consensus is not decided by exhaustion. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close. What is the alternative? To move the page without a clear consensus for this, in the face of two of the three panel members finding an absence of consensus? Proponents of moving the page would be much better off keeping their powder dry and gathering data to support a better argument for moving the page some months down the road. For example, we now have a process in place to fix all of the incorrect incoming links, which appears to be around 20% of the total links, a compelling data point not available during the last process. bd2412 T 15:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse non-close per Amakuru, Andrewa and JFC. I agree that there's nothing actionable at this point, but it should never considered as precedent for future cases, except as an example to avoid. I also agree with not enforcing any specific moratorium - the proper point to retake the move request will be when discussion dies out and people can start with renewed strength. Diego (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse non-close. I think that's a very good way of putting it, so now my position is explicit. All three panelists seem to have assessed the oppose arguments as weaker than the move case, just two of them as not weak enough; Well, for those interested in just how weak, have a look at User:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016#A summary of the arguments against, and if you think any of them are valid I'd welcome further discussion at User talk:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016 (maybe start a new section there). TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close Those saying it was not closed are appearing to bizarrely wikilawyer an outcome, solely because they disapprove of a finding of 'no consensus' - and as multiple people noted on both sides, except the most partisan movers, there could hardly be any thing but no-consensus, given that discussion. Now they say sure, the outcome was 'no consensus about non consensus' (and they endorse that!), but somehow they find their way to arguing it was not closed as 'no consensus', when it expressly was in fact closed as, 'no consensus' - endorse all the way around. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• This is not "wikilawyering" at all, no, this is an attempt to end the previous discussion on a crystal clear note, so as to have a clarity with which to continue future quests to put this situation right. That "non-close" required this review just as it would have needed one if the single panel member had decided to Move the page title without the explicit input of the other members rather than to say "no consensus". Walk a short mile in the moccasins of the move supporters and you won't be so mystified, Alanscottwalker! Whether this most recent decision is endorsed or overturned, we will at least have an end to the most recent discussion, and a "no consensus" end will be a fine place to begin again – anew.  Paine  ^u/c 16:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

::Alanscottwalker, the main concern in this review is not that it didn't go our preferred way; move reviews aren't supposed to decide over the move arguments anyway.

::Delegating to admins to determine the consensus of a discussion is one of the few places where value strictly following a formal procedure. A move review is supposed to assess whether the close did follow the proper process, and there's no chance in hell that we agree that what happened in the New York closure is the way closures are supposed to be handled, not that it was an exemplary execution of the defined process.

:: The process was so muddy that it isn't even clear what an "overturn" outcome would even mean. But the fact that we wouldn't know how to act to improve things if we rejected that close, doesn't mean that we need to accept it as any other normally closed, perfectly acceptable, rules-confirming decision, because it's no such thing. Diego (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

:::Come now. There are several here picking at it solely because they did not like the no consensus close. Any claim to be upholding process is belied by the very fact that you are making-up !votes not recognized by MR process -- it can only be your ivotes in this MR, that are out-of-process, if anything. The underlying close is within process, in fact some here, are arguing we have to change process or need more process spelled out because this close is within process. More to the point, the underlying close is clear and righteous: two to one closed no consensus, and the last did the ministerial close and closed no consensus, because there was no consensus, and the silly argument that you are rather endorsing a 'no consensus about a nonconsensus' is just that, silly. It is, 'no consensus', and it's well within the closers' powers, and reason, in doing the right thing to find no consensus there. Procedurally, that is an endorse by MR. The only conclusion to draw is that almost all see no real grounds to even argue overturn, so it is endorse. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

:::No consensus results are inherently not crystal clear. I don't that clarity is possible with any no consensus close. That doesn't mean they are not the right option. Yes it would have been nice if the closers had come together to write a unified statement but even without one there is no clear consensus and thus the no consensus result is perfectly valid. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Osho|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Osho}}|rm_section=Talk:Osho#Requested_move_13_September_2016}}

closer didn't adhere to consensus guidelines for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions closing discussions], based on responses, the result was no clear consensus. Closer considered multiple WP:PRIMARY sources (Osho International website, and number of published transcripts of 'Osho' talks by that organisation) as sufficient evidence, while not considering that the bulk of the content cited in the article is actually WP:SECONDARY; and most of which rarely uses the term Osho. Additionally, post death of Rajneesh, academic sources still very rarely use the name Osho; same can be said for encyclopedic sources. Closer never checked this despite archive discussion for previous move requests highlighting the fact. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho#Secondary_sources_that_were_not_included_in_the_review Please note the following]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandroid (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• {{ec}} Comment by closer. I was approached by {{u|Pandroid}} and {{u|Amakuru}} at my talk page, and we had a discussion at Talk:Osho#No_clear_consensus_for_move, so I will just briefly reiterate my points: I maintain that "move" was a reasonable conclusion of the RM discussion; there were three opposes, and four supports (including the nominator). I don't count votes, though – the evidence presented by the proposer was extensive (to the level of tl;dr) to the effect that "Osho" is a WP:COMMONNAME now and it was not IMO effectively refuted in the debate. Perhaps the strongest argument was presented by {{u|BarrelProof}}, who didn't even !vote: {{tq| I note that in the very lengthy argumentation given above, none of the mentioned sources of information are independent of his promoters and publishers who hold the copyright to his works.}} Yeah, I sort of missed that. The evidence prasented above seems rather strong as well (I didn't carefully study all details), but it should have been presented in the RM, which was open for a whole month.
  I am not looking for "back-tapping" in form of "Endorse" !votes. It might have been a bad call, but I don't think it would be fair to participants to change my close seven days later and move it back (to a title Rajneesh that is IMO also questionable – it stems from Talk:Osho/Archive_12#Requested_move with a questionable consensus – I don't think WP:HONORIFIC is applicable so easily). What I'm looking for is a guidance how this controversial RM process can be conducted or reopened in a fair manner with all arguments presented. No such user (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

::well, it was clearly a controversial move request, there's plenty of background to this in previous move based discussions, which should have been consulted, running with questionable primary evidence was not a good call see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Archive_11#Title_-_.22Osho_.28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh.29.22] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Archive_11#Requested_move_.28attempt_2.29][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Archive_12#Requested_move_2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Archive_11#Requested_move] and other naming related discussion:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Archive_10#Why_.22Osho.22_and_not_.22Rajneesh.22.3F].Pandroid (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

:::And? All that can be seen in those move discussions is that they have been controversial and borderline, as expected. Your RM#1 is nonsense nomination by Neelix; RM#2 was closed by borderline supervote by JHunterJ to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh; there is the dubious one to Rajneesh I mentioned before; your #3 was an unsuccessful attempt to revert it. I knew it was controversial. While it is expected from closer to do some due diligence, I don't think that reading everything from 12 archives qualifies. Also, let's face it, "Osho" is a reasonable (and perhaps even the original) title. We have e.g. :de:Osho and :fr:Osho, among others.

:::Before respectfully butting out, I would just pull a salient quote from WP:RMCI: {{tq|In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.}} I think that an article that had at least 5 questionable RMs since 2012, which had been move-protected since 2015, qualifies as "has been unstable for a long time". Make of that what you will. No such user (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

::::OK, that's 7 days, can you please now revert the move and reopen discussion? Pandroid (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Re-open. It's hard to fault the closer, considering what was presented in the (very lengthy) RM. However, after the close, an editor has submitted additional evidence here that would argue against the Osho title. Considering that this was a line call already, it's worth letting the discussion continue for a while.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

::I want to reiterate what {{u|BarrelProof}} says below: this close was within the bounds of RMCI and relevant points of convention. I still think that given the fact that it was a close call and there's been additional evidence that would likely alter the discussion, re-opening to avoid another lengthy RM in the near future would be a good move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Re-open: When he was alive, his existence caused much controversy: between his Sannyasins and Oregon's elected officials; between Oregon media and voters, neighboring residents, etc. The histories(!) of article moves demonstrates the contentiousness of the name. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rajneesh here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Osho here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Osho%20(disambiguation) here]. There are probably more. In two months ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osho&diff=733081866&oldid=733035144 I warned] that renaming the article was controversial, but that discussion has already been archived, so no fault to the closer. Leaving the discussion open for more substantial evidence is warranted. —EncMstr (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Re-open or Endorse – I greatly appreciate the closer's acknowledgement above that the close was a borderline and difficult decision and that my comment about the lack of independence in the sources is troubling. Nevertheless, the conversation had moved on after my comment, and the issues were explored in the further conversation. I think the close was a reasonable judgment call given the commentary that was provided. Additional information that was provided later leads to further questioning of the wisdom of the move, but the judgment call was a good-faith close within the bounds of reasonable interpretation of the common name guideline and the subject's expressed preference of identity (given the information that was provided at the time). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse but re-open — The job of a closure is to consider the arguments that were presented in the discussion in relation to existing policies and guidelines, so as far as the close was at the time endorsing would have been reasonable. While it is good if closers consider archives, it is not required as situations may have changed; I'd remind !voters that want information from previous discussions to be considered to reference or link the previous points as necessary when commenting. That said it seems reasonable to re-open to consider additional information. PaleAqua (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn (reopen). Too lineball, too contentious (even if in hindsight) to allow an arbitrary WP:NAC (undeclared!) to bind. If you want to exercise the privilege of "admin discretion", put yourself through RfA. Non admin closes need to be exercised more conservatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• :Yes, I think I agree with you there. I used to be a prolific non-admin closer before I got the bit, and I think it's a vital piece of the jigsaw in terms of keeping the RM backlog down. I think non-admins should be very wary of doing controversial or contentious closes though. The "page mover" user right, while generally a good thing, has muddied the waters here because there is a perception that it automatically gives non-admins quasi-admin status for closing RMs. I don't think that was ever the intention though, and the withdrawal of the "closed by a page mover" template backs that up.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Saraiki dialect|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Saraiki dialect}}|rm_section=}}

Saraiki is a language 39.37.36.15 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Not an appropriate request for this noticeboard. There has already been an open WP:RFC which is a consensus process. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saraiki_dialect#RfC:_Is_Saraiki_language.3F] ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.247.238 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. The main question that I can see is how I came to the conclusion that there was a consensus not to move this page. In my opinion, the strongest argument was that, while any reliable source may normally be used to make determinations on Wikipedia, when it comes to a title that should use a "dialect" vs. "language" modifier, the only sources that are truly reliable are sources that are linguist-based books and papers. In that vein, and since Google seems so important to debaters of this question, [https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=saraiki+dia&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4MXGA_enUS563US563&q=saraiki+dialect&gs_l=hp..0.0l2j0i22i30.0.0.0.6259...........0.u1r6GsPtd34&qscrl=1#q=saraiki+dialect&tbm=bks here is a Google search page group] in the "book" category - the search question: "Saraiki dialect". As can be seen, there are 562 results from book-writing experts, to include the US Library of Congress, that specifically call Saraiki a dialect. While that is less than half of the book count for "Saraiki language", it is clear that the authors of the "language" list are either linguists but the words "Saraiki" and "language" are separated in their books, or thay are not linguists at all. In contrast, the authors in the "Saraiki dialect" group are linguists who either specifically call Saraiki a "dialect", or they do not refer to "Saraiki" at all and leave it lumped together anonymously with other dialects of the Punjabi language under the heading "Lahnda continuum". I didn't know all this when I closed the move debate. That close was specifically based upon what I read as "consensus not to move" within the !votes and rationales of that debate. What I have written here about the searches is what I have learned since I closed the move request. So I stand by my close.  Paine  ^u/c 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Paine Ellsworth}} re "{{tq|the only sources that are truly reliable are sources that are linguist-based books and papers}}", which policy or guideline is that based on? It may be a misunderstadning on your part, because AFAIK we have never prioritised specialist academic sources over other sources when choosing a WP:COMMONNAME for an WP:ARTICLETITLE. If anything the common use sources shuold be prioritised since they are more likely to use terminology recognizable to ordinary people reading the encylopedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

:::I thought and thought about this, Amakuru, and you may very well be right, and I wrong; however, to me it's just common sense. Just because the Wall Street Journal or the Udant Martand writes an article in which they call Saraiki a language does not make Saraiki other than a dialect, not when linguists are specific about Saraiki being a dialect. Common sense rules many things on Wikipedia, things that are often not covered by written policies or even guidelines. I've thought of an analogy that might help. I like to read articles on nuclear research, and time and again I read less-than-scientific articles that refer to an "atom" as a "particle". Science has not seen an atom as a particle for a very long time now. Atoms comprise particles, which are the basic protons, neutrons and electrons. In a similar vein, some languages are composed of dialects. Linguistics, a science, repeatedly tells us that the Punjabi language comprises Saraiki and several other dialects. Just because a news source calls one of those dialects a language does not make it so. Sometimes we have to go with the science sources over other less scientific ones.  Paine  ^u/c 10:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

:::I would suppose that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) is as close as Wikipedia gets to guiding us to envision Punjabi as a "major language" (and Saraiki as not one). It doesn't mention dialects, only languages.  Paine  ^u/c 10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

::::I understand where you're coming from, {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, I really do, and don't think I'm criticising you here because I'm not. It's just that maybe we're looking at this from different angles. To me, the distinction between a language and a dialect is not a black and white issue - linguists will naturally tend to take the view that closely related tongues are dialects, because they are scientists of a sort, and it suits them well to classify that way. But a language is also a social and political construct. In many cases something is defined as a language simply because it has been standardized and recognized by a government. Croatian language and Serbian language are excellent cases in point. As far as I am away they are virtually the same thing (albeit written in different scripts), but because speakers and national governments strongly identify with one version over the other, they define that as their national *language*. Conversely, with the different branches of German, namely Swiss German (which is in itself a range of dialects), they are vastly more different from each other than Serbian and Croatian, to the extent that they are not mutually intelligible at the extremes. Yet the speakers, and their goverments, all consider them to be German dialects, and they identify as German language speakers rather than Swiss German speakers or any other name. In the Saraiki case, there is a strong movement to recognize it as a proper official standardized language, and it is clear that its speakers self identify with that language rather than thinking of themselves as Punjabi speakers with a regional dialect. And I think it's reasonable, and indeed preferable, for us as non linguists simply examining the sources, to go with that real world identity rather than the purely scientific. For what it's worth, Britannica has taken this approach, and define it as a language: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siraiki-language]. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

:::::So if we go with what you say above, it's as if one were to go out and get people to sign a petition that atoms are indeed particles, and the more sigs gathered on that petition, the more we should view atoms as particles? It doesn't work that way, Amakuru. The Britannica is not governed by Wikipedia's PRECISION policy, and the science of linguistics tells us that "language" is too imprecise a "natural disambiguator" when the more precise "dialect" should be used. No amount of pressure from "I like 'Saraiki language{{'"}} enthusiasts should pull editors away from using precise and unambiguous article titles when those are precisely what should go at the top of Wikipedia articles. This is so much like the "New York" debate in reverse. There is an unambiguous and precise title at Saraiki dialect that should stay in place until the science of linguistics tells us otherwise.  Paine  ^u/c 12:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

::::::But it does work that way. That's the entire essence of WP:COMMONNAME in a nutshell, and our policy is the same as Britannica's in that respect. Wikipedia is not a journal of linguistics, it is not a specialist academic magazine, it is a general purpose encyclopedia, and our names should not be domain specific or necessarily the same as experts and scientists would use.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :>) The essence of Wikipedia's COMMONNAME policy allows for the precision of science to be used whenever disagreements just like the RM I closed and the battleground RfCs that have been opened at Talk:Saraiki dialect seem to have no resolution. Just read our medical articles and the many Genus species-titled articles. When a less precise title is proposed, and the consensus is to deny that proposal, then here we are at move review. And yet instead of discussing the "way" I closed the request, here we are still discussing the merits of the arguments – still discussing whether or not I should have moved the page rather than whether or not I gave the request a proper and respectful close. While it's all tied together, this discussion should not get too far away from avoiding the arguing of whether or not the the page should have been moved. This move review is not about continuing the arguments, it's about whether or not the closing process was appropriate? or was it somehow compromised.  Paine  ^u/c 13:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

::::::::Certainly, although inevitably a closer has to get into the arguments to a certain extent, and sometimes a close can be demonstrated to be wrong because the closer gave undue weight to opposes that were not grounded in Wikipedia policy; in that instance the move review itself would have to get into detail on the particular arguments for and against. Personally I don't think it was a terrible close, but I think it was a stretch to call it "not moved". Personally I would probably have gone with "no consensus", which although the result is the same, it sends a slightly different message regarding the strength of arguments. Whether or not the arguments against were valid, I'm certainly not convinced they were so slam dunk as to render the roughly equal number of support !votes invalid.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, I'm not realing seeing how you arrived at the conclusion that linguistics sources call it a dialect. I'm having a look at the first 20 results of the google books search you linked to above and I see only three linguistics books: two are wikipedia mirrors, and one is the Encyclopedia of Linguistics, but there the words "Saraiki" and "dialect" appear in different parts of the text and clearly don't relate to the same entity. Maybe a search with the phrase enclosed in quotation marks would yield more releveant results? As for the LoC subject heading, it is in fact "Siraiki language" [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Toa8jD80K7kC&pg=PA7236&dq=saraiki+language+subject+headings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHiq6Zt9XPAhVVF8AKHTnVByYQ6AEIJTAA#v=snippet&q=%22saraiki%20language%22&f=false]. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse as there is currently an ongoing RfC and there's no point bringing this up here. For all the flaws of the RM discussion (very obvious lack of participation from anyone from WP Languages, proliferation of WP:OR-style arguments, involvement of a suspicious WP:SPA and one editor known for WP:POV issues), I don't have any particular issue with the close itself. – Uanfala (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Relist or change to "no consensus" (disclaimer: I supported the RM) - as noted by {{u|Uanfala}} above, this debate suffered from lack of participation and a lot of original research, so a relist and attempt to gather thorough opinions from more Wikipedians in WikiProjects and elsewhere could be useful. Failing that, as mentioned above in my discussion with Paine, I don't see a consensus against moving, rather I think the debate as it stands is a no consensus, with some good points made on both sides. As a final point, and again, as discussed above, I would like to raise my objection to the closer's assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saraiki_dialect&diff=743890798&oldid=743888972 here] that "{{tq|the only sources that are truly reliable are sources that are linguist-based books and papers}}". Wikipedia has never worked that way. Certainly we take scientific names into account, but we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. WP:COMMONNAME is our policy here, and RM closers should be aware of that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. There was no consensus to move title despite relisting. Any new change could only be triggered by WP: CON. Close was considerate and just. Yoyi ling (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Battle of Polog|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Battle of Polog}}|rm_section=}}

The result was "Move" where there was no consensus for this. There were three votes "Support" and three "Oppose". The closing editor (or probably admin) said: "and the mentioned WP:CONSISTENCY as well as GHits give enough of a valid reason for us to go ahead and move". These arguments were given by nominator but were contested during discussion. The closing editor did not explain why the nominator's arguments were better than those of other editors involved in discussion. The decision was not fair because there was a discussion but not a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrimi991 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Closer's note. It's usual practice to discuss things informally with the closer before opening a move review, which didn't happen here, but no matter. I admitted in the close that it was a line call, but ultimately I still think it was the correct close. On the !vote tally, I was disregarded the last "oppose" per WP:RMCI, since it had no explanation attached to it, and the editor in question had not otherwise contributed to the debate. Plus the comment above is not counting the nomination as a support, meaning really it is 4:2 in favour of Support. Beyond that, I was persuaded by the arguments made in support, as I said in the close. The article itself is called Polog, which means WP:CONSISTENCY is satisfied. GHits are less clear, I'll grant you that, but neither side made a good argument on that - both opposes provided false links which claimed to be using a quoted "Battle of Polog" but were in fact not.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

::The last "oppose" had no explanation, while two "Support" are dubious. User: Svetisrdj voted just 46 minutes after User: Axiomus. Svetisrdj had not been active for 12 days, voted and disappeared again. There were only three editors who contributed to the debate: Antidiskriminator (Nominator), Liridon (Oppose) and me (Strongly Oppose). You say you were persuaded by WP:CONSISTENCY argument, but did you really read my counterarguments carefully? Regarding GHits, the results given by nominator were those of Serbian Google Books. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

::Two editors who voted "Support" just gave the "explanation" per guidelines? Which guidelines? Why did not they cite guidelines they were referring to? Is this really better than no explanation? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close. This was a judgment call, but within the bounds of a closer's remit per WP:RMCI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Pseudo-relist of the MRV - I was going to close this MRV as "no consensus" after 15 days but I decided not to in hopes that there will be more comments -- the concerns raised about the RM closer are particularly valid and well-formulated, and a single opposition + a single endorsement doesn't make for a really good MRV in my opinion. Relisting MRVs isn't really a thing so I'll just leave this open for now (there's no rush is there) in hope that other editors will review the RM close. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|Salvadrim}}, the closing comment was totally within a closer's remit per WP:RMCI. Especially given {{u|Amakuru}}'s subsequent explanation here (his first opportunity since the close), it looks totally within bounds. No comments for 15 days suggests it's time to just move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

:::As much as I hold your opinion in high regard, I'm sure you understand why I'd like to have more opinions. Sometimes quality cannot overcome a lack of quantity. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse – Indeed the closer made a line call, well within WP:RMCI authority. In fine this is merely a spelling dispute on the locality's name. If some editors argue that Pollog should be the English spelling, they should raise such a discussion at Talk:Polog. Also the appeal to move review was rushed out of process: dissenters should have discussed the issue with the closer first. — JFG ^talk 09:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse -- Close was within RMCI and consistency is a valid reason for the close. Note a bunch of non-English google search results were included in the discussion this is the English version of Wikipedia and when possible we should prefer established English versions of names when possible, see WP:EN. I would have preferred to see ngrams or the like compared to bare searchs such as [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pollog%2CPolog&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPollog%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CPolog%3B%2Cc0 this one]. Several of the comments appear to talk about Google book search but all appear to be normal web searches at least when I checked them PaleAqua (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. As noted in the closing comment, this was a close call, but it seems a perfectly good one. Most of the arguments advanced above for overturning were dealt with adequately in the closing comments, the only notable exception being the very weak one of a simple head count, which has now also been answered. Andrewa (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)